Risk factors for early recurrence after discontinuing lithium in bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Time to a new episode of bipolar disorder (BD) is shorter after discontinuing lithium rapidly. We now address this and other factors associated with the risk of early illness after discontinuing lithium. METHODS: We compared factors for association with recurrences of BD within 12 months of discontinuing long-term lithium treatment, using bivariate and multivariable analyses, as well as survival analysis to evaluate latency to new episodes versus rate of lithium-discontinuation and prior treatment duration. RESULTS: Among 227 BD subjects who received lithium for 4.47 [CI: 3.89-5.04] years and then discontinued, rapid treatment-discontinuation, and stopping for medical reasons were strongly associated with new illness-episodes within 12 months, as were diagnosis (BD-I > BD-II), greater morbidity during lithium-treatment, and less education, but neither longer treatment nor serum lithium concentrations. Discontinuation rate was strongly associated with shorter median latency to a new episode (rapid: 3.50; gradual [≥2 weeks]: 10.6 months), even with very early recurrences excluded to avoid potential contributions of emerging illness to treatment-discontinuation. Early recurrence was not associated with treatment-duration of ≥2 or ≥5 years or less. In multivariable logistic regression, rapid discontinuation, stopping for medical reasons, and BD-I diagnosis remained significantly, independently associated with early illness after lithium-discontinuation, with no effect of treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Early recurrence risk was again much greater after rapid discontinuation of lithium and discontinuing for medical reasons, somewhat greater with BD-I than BD-II, and following greater morbidity during lithium-treatment, but not related to dose or duration of preceding treatment exposure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".